Slashdot Mirror
Is A Public Wireless Internet Possible?
edmz asks: "As of this day anyone with resources can deploy their Web site and be accessible worldwide. Thanks to telcos wanting to charge for use of their infrastructure this might change soon, who knows. But the point is that its possible in this very moment. Now, let's be imaginative and think that in 10 years we will be able to have a truly wireless Internet. What things are being done now as to guarantee that we will have a public and big enough part of the spectrum so that we can broadcast, share and communicate as we do with the net now? Will all of the spectrum be private, and thus, possibly pay per use?" A wireless Internet, when created, will be one of the first major advances of the 21st century. How long will it take before it becomes a reality?
I fail to understand how a subscription service will prevent eavesdropping.
AKA, Goodbye Amateur Radio.. hello Sprint PCS Wireless Internet Services Network. *sigh*. Some things in this world should remain a public asset and not be divied up to the highest bidder like our spectrum. It personally pisses me off to see broadcasters buying and selling the radio and television spectrum as if it was their personal property rather than something they were granted to use for the benefit of the citizens of the area that it covers. Take the radio station situation in many areas. Here in Cleveland, Ohio almost all of the stations are owned by one corporation. The result? Bubblegum rock, "urban contemporary", and country music are all that you can find on the dial. Gone are the days of alternative rock. The best we can hope for is finding something interesting on the "light rock" station. That's just sad.
I have seen only the advertising campaign. It appears that this company may provide affordable, 2-way satellite access. StarBand
There's a company called Illinois Wireless that serves much of southern illinois with wireless internet. Cable modems won't be available for "5-10 years" according to the cableco (ATT) and DSL will never be offered by the phone company (verizon). So Illinois Wireless (www.ilwllc.com) offers bandwidth down there. geez this sounds like a commercial. ITs not though, because Illinois Wireless gets their bandwidth from Sprintlink, and springlink has about a 25% uptime, in my experience. So FUCK SPRINT -- that's what this post is about.
We're working on a free public wireless network in Seattle.
see http://seattlewireless.net/
Actually it's being worked on right now. They just had suffered a couple of setbacks as some of the equipment had to be moved.
There really isn't enough radio frequenies to allow this.
Lets say your in NYC, and the whole 5 to 6 Ghz (if it were not already allocated to other things) was allocated soley too wireless networking, this means millions of people have to share 1Ghz (= 1Giga bit / second, without error correction, etc...) of bandwidth. This is why home 802.11 have such a limited distance & bandwidth, there just isn't enough room to put everyone, and low power means that most people don't interfere with each other, but put one or more wireless lans together that use the same frequency, and you get errors, etc...
So, if you want wireless networking, you miss out on bandwidth, if you want bandwidth, land-line & optic-fibre is the way to go, this is why I see wireless networking really being for small devices, and the occasional laid-back mobile internet, nothing really special.
Maybe one day, someone will invent a way to not use radios waves (quantum entanglement anyone?), that is when true wireless communications will be as big and as fast as you want, but for now, your all just going to have to share what we have.
PS. If you have any suggestions or questions, I will check replies to this message for a few days.
VK3TST
-- "People aren't stupid. Usually." -- jd
Here's a interesting link for those of you that want to read up on Wireless.
http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
I have spend quite some time designing just this kind of network. There are some special problems once it scales past a few thousand users.
The main issue is that there isn't, currently, a routing algorithm that can do the job. You have a network, half of which is probably mobile, and the sheer number of 'cell changes' causes so much routing traffic that it threatens to take over the entire network. As for optimum-path routes, forget it. For a start, you never know the entire matrix to be able to do any optimization. By the time you've done the discovery, it's changed. The best basis I've come up with for a workable system is the Simulated Annealing algorithm.
Protocols like 802.11 are good for setting up p2p or p2mp networks, but suck at peer2peer. Trust me. There's this thing called 'hidden terminal syndrome' which basically means that the reciever you're trying to transmit to may be able to see another transmitter that you can't, and so while you're transmitting when you think the air is clear, the reciever is actually getting inteference. This becomes a big problem once your density gets high.
We need some new protocols that can adapt much more flexibly, and are optimized for 'global' bandwidth considerations.
There is also the issue of fairness. Essentially, the only way a distributed network can work is if each person contributes more to the network than they take. But how do you stop the assholes from hacking their transciever to give them priority? The answer is a 'digital currency' system that can enforce the quid-pro-quo nature of the network. You get 'points' for passing messages, and can call those points back in when you need capacity. This also gets into the 'web of trust' problem.
IPV6 is the answer to the address problem. I'm certain that wireless networks will be the 'killer app' for IPV6.
I expect to see a first generation wireless net using 11mb/s DSSS cards, basically geeks going point to point with medium wired networks attached.
Eventually, the density will increase, and head towards two seperate critical points: The point of total coverage, and the point of protocol collapse for the first-gen network.
Depending which happens first, and how far between they are (which is even affected by things like the local geography) rides the success of the system. If it reaches coverage before collapse, it will succeed, because it's usefulness will be enough to make sure the painful transition happens.
It would be nice to have the second-gen protocols ready early, but I doubt it will happen.
Having pointed out the problems, the benefits will be incalculable. For a start, it will save lives, since public infrastructure always goes down during a disaster, (cyclone, hurricane, earthquake) right when it's needed. A distributed system is far more resilient.
Later.
Jeremy Lee | Orinoco
What's the point? they may as well go for a netzero account. How're you going to sustain any reasonable level of serice on $5 a month? You still need to pay for enough lines that your users don't run into nonstop busy signals and such
Not true. The amount of bandwidth per cell depends on how wide the pipe is between the cell and the switch. This is typically T1, E1 or fiber. With one E1 you get 2Mbit, add another E1 you get 4Mb and so on. I do this for a living, I should know.
Firt off I live in what is considered a rural area of Arizona.We have your basic local ISP and one or two major pop's (MSN & AOL).The next big thing here will be "wireless" which will be signals bounced off satellite to local towers then to a small disk that will signal to a special modem much like wireless cable for TV.So far we have two companies that will duke it out on this front.All well and good.
Now for true public wireless someone has to have that satellite (or permission to use it),the towers and the hardware to get all this going.Right off the bat my cynical mind tells me this is going to cost some major investment.Of course I am only looking at the one facet of wireless that I am aware of.
We have seen that there is almost nothing truly free when it comes to the nuts and bolts of the Internet.Most free ISP's have gone down or you must pay some price (scrolling advertisements,limited access,etc).I would welcome a truly free,uncensored,open way to access the Internet and be in a really open enviroment but I simply do not see who will foot the bill.
Tired of being another body in the flock? Linux ! We are not sheep anymore.
Ham radio is orderly because its operators understand and abide by common-sense and practical rules and regulations. Liken the art of ham radio to driving a car. Without an understanding of the rules, many terrible things can happen! That's why we have ham and driver's licenses.
Many people think ham radio has arcane rules and regulations to hinder the uninformed and non-techies from the hobby. On the contrary, ham radio has rules and regulations in place to educate its user community. Listen to ham radio operators communicate for five minutes then compare their demeanor with Family Radio Service (FRS) or Citizen's Band (CB). Ham radio licenses are not difficult to obtain for those who are truly interested in obtaining them. I have had friends study for their tests and learn the material in a week and in some cases a weekend. My wife, my mother, and my father all have their licenses.
I'm writing a si fi set in the future and have considered how the Internet may run may years from now.
Nobody uses phones anymore it's all Internet..
The phone companys still exist but only to run fiber optic for back bones and ISPs.
Backbones run the primary network. ISPs provide service to "Commuity network" providers, servers (Websites etc) and "Geeks" who want/need cutting edge technology (optic lines etc)
For most speed isn't a major issue. With radio IPs going from 2 meg to as slow as 28.4k websites usually adjust according to the populare technology of the time. Moores law begins to apply to bandwith as the "standards" are set down by the local Community networks.
The community networks operators are basicly ham ops.. They do it for prestige. Political canidates, advocates, geeks, and research organisations run thies. Usually geeks but there is the odd exeption.
The community network provider uses what ever he wants but if you want to use something diffrent he'll be more than happy to take a donation of a feed modem for the technology you want to support. To help premote new modems some companys just give away feed modems and suck up the cost in the sales of the user modems.
The community network provider pays for his own ISP feed.
Each community has more than one community network provider so you can usually get an account from whom ever you like. Most community network providers however use the user banlist.. It dosn't matter if a community provider agrees with the other providers policys a person who blatently ignores policys is going to have a hard time getting a new feed.. In the same rule a community network provider isn't going to be taken very sereously if he isn't reasonable with policy enforcment. In short spammers get stuck paying for expensive ISP accounts just to spam.. and many ISPs honner the community network bandlists.
It isn't nessisary to get a direct feed to the community network.. It's normal for the community network to be distributed in a maze like fassion with everyone pulling feeds from nearby rather than the far away community network provider. However the provider still gets finnal say even when someone isn't directly connected but is far off on his downlink.
"DICKtator" Community network admin basicly just lose users to a more reasonable provider.
The community network feed is free to anyone (as a rule) Charging a fee sets you up for a fall when someone else provides same service for free.
Community network admin who charg a fee are dispised.. seen has half dictator and half spammer. (Spammer becomes anyone who abuses the network for proffit rather than todays UCE.. and dictator is someone who abuses position... so a Spam Dictator is someone who abuses position for proffit)
The community networks have problems. Using microwave technology the signal can be messed with. Most modems use high grade point to point mutation encryption but not allways. The biggest issues are the guys running the networks. Not everyone is in it for the technology and some agendas. Occasionally a community network provider will ban all porn sites.. Or will block a certen game or protocal.. It usually works out in the end that people just switch to someone else ASAP.
The fun part is the package point to point signal. Usually some idiot figures out there is a packet feed and puts something matalic in the way. So most people go with brodcast style modems.
Occasionall it'll happen someone will BAN an operating system or REQUIRE an operating system.. Users of operating systems not allowed on the network tend to protest the community network. It's a matter of pride to them at this point. They could switch but the whole idea that someone is trying to pull this is just bad enough..
In my view community networks are not a matter of if.. but when... I set my story far enough into the future that I feel it's safe to assume community networks are a well established fact.
Also in my story the workforce realitys has changed a bit. Most manual labor jobs are automated. High end repair, invention, and art are about the only manual labor jobs left and thies are really skill jobs.
Accually all jobs are skill jobs.. Not quite push button but it's a lot easyer. The ludites are people who refuse to have wearable computers.. however it's hard to spot this as busness managers, and anyone who worrys about apperence refuses to use wearable computers. That sensor over the eye is just "just horrid" (according to style and fassion experts)
Everyone makes good money...
The biggy issue of the day are "work-a-holics" not the real people but more the people who wish to work past the normal retirement age of 35. It's seen as horrid. People are expected to retire when they have acheaved a level of wealth that they can live comfortably to the old age of 104 years (few ever make it that far.. It's just the far extream just in case.. most people don't live past 92)
Anyway the whole idea here is that everyone has technical skill.. Everyone is on the network.. the people who worry about bandwith are the Servers, Community network providers (CNPs), ISPs, Backbones and the phone companys (who run the optic cable)...
Phone companys still bill using postal mail and still refuse to use electronic check..
Amazon.com, Etoys.com and many other "DotCom" websites are lampoon websites.. "Back in the DotCom days thies websites were the home of companys who never really did figure out how the Internet works.. they died in the late 1990s and early 2000s.. Today they exist as monuments to sillyness.."...
Sevral protocals are used.. gopher is alive and well.. the protocals of choice for e-commerce are Com-E (A pun) Short for Commerce Electronic and Telnet... The web is usualy just legacy stuff.. older data.. archives.. It would be an unjustifyed hassle to move to newer technologys.
The real limitation is the FCC.. They set the rules for what radio bandwiths can be used for the Internet.. They refuse to admit the death of the TV industry (they keep introducing TV standards in the microwave signal range).... In a bit of irony AM radio is alive and well...
Millitary signal for unknown reason is de-alocated by the FCC and has been freed up for community networks.. Conspericy therarists wonder.. Most people just think they have some new technology they are keeping secret.. It'd probably get found out sooner or later but.. It seems community network providers would rather it be later... They don't want the FCC to take the bandwith away...
I don't actually exist.
> Why should wireless internet be free, when wired isn't?
There is no should or shouldn't about it...
Free ISPs are hamppered by that wire... it's an additional cost.. Many free ISPs exist.. banner ads and just hobby systems.. But as a rule they don't last long due the costs imposed by that wire.. or fiber optic.. or any phisical connetion.
Free ISPs will not be so limited with radio IP.. One antanna for all the connections.. and only a one time fee for the antanna.. Maybe a yearly FCC liccens.. But the cost to serve 5,000,000 people is the about the same as the cost to serve 5... Not counting additional equipment and maintainence on same.
"Should"? Well.. It can be... it dosn't have to be... people are perficly willing to pay for it and will continue to do so for as long as there is no free alternitive...
I don't actually exist.
> So, expect public bandwidth to be banned.
This being true of some companys a real capitalist finds proffit in feeding the poor...
(Todays proffit modle for poverty is as advertising.. "We feed the poor" "We give computers to the poor" - Microsoft, "We protect the environment" - Exxon... Not only the most evil but all companys use this.. the most evil however don't have much of a choice).
VA Linux makes money selling computers with Linux preinstalled.. WC-CdRom sells CDs loaded with free software (anyones free software). I think RedHat missed the boat with focusing on selling a distro.. Caldera with certification, support and enbeded systems has a better grasp of how to proffit from a distro.
Many companys would see public bandwith and an advantage not a disadvantage and would loby FOR it if anyone lobbyed against it...
More than likely it'll happen under there noses... Companys who try to get stuff banned aren't paying attention to trends.. It's happening now but won't materealise for 10 to 50 years from now. During than time it'll cement itself. Politicians will come to depend on it long before corpratism catches note... Try lobbying to Senitor Please that free bandwith must go after he wins an ellection using it...
I don't actually exist.
> The telephone companies have determined grassroots bandwidth is not a constitutionally protected right.
They don't have much say in the matter...
I don't actually exist.
> I would rather the government spy on me than some company and with the rampant anarchy free and open wireless would bring that is exactly what would happen.
I would much rather have someone spy on me that I could sue if I cought them doing it...
Yes companys will find some excuse for it but as soon as someone dose someone will file a class action lawsute (There is an industry of filing lawsites for people.. today they need to get the persons permition before filing.. I'd join such a lawsute..)
You really can't sue the government... (You can but... they'd just pass a law making it legal and do it anyway)
There isn't much anarcy in busness.. Government regulation and capitalism both rule busness.
On the asside... public wireless internet would mean.. radio carrier.. Government, Corperations, Hobbyists, 31337 hax0r d00ds, centient ants, and Alien fungus on weather ballowns will all tap the signal...
I don't actually exist.
>If Tesla's free wireless power wasn't used, neither will this.
Tesla couldn't get a backer for his proffitless venture..
Linus never bothered with backing and just wrote code..
If we wait for someone to back a free wireless it'll never happen... if we do it ourselfs out of our pockets it'll be posted on Slashdot hmm 3 times?
Will it be done? No.. That implys a start at a future date.. It's allready happening.. The start is in the past...
I don't actually exist.
encrypt at a level below ip, just above the physical layer. (or in it)
they just SMS some garbage to you, nothing to get excited about...
you're wrong.
People in Erfurt and Jena (two cities in Germany) connected to each other using Wireless LAN for internet access. Read about it here.
Remember the old mailbox-nets like FidoNet? That exactly the same thing: Private information infrastructure.
-- To bloody go where no man has gone before.
> Cybikos will relay emails for each other, if I understand correctly. I haven't used one, but it sounds like a
> badass little toy for $99. Plug it into your computer and you can serve as an Internet gateway (CyWIG)
> for any other Cybiko in range.
> Anyone else have one of these yet?
Mine is still in the mail, but I have already grabbed the dev kit. Uses C with a few added functions to do message passing and detecting other machines. One could easily make a telnet prog, using the connected one to do NAT. Don't think there is enough room for linux tho:}
MiniPlug: You can get it from the site for only 89 with the code CA8611.
how to fight spam
please join the cause
http://Lenny.com
There are already public bands at around 10.5 and 24 Ghz suitable for broadband wireless networks. While the equipment for this frequency range isn't cheap, it is becomming more affordable. See www.tlxs.com.
Actually they have a lot of say in the matter of spectrum allocation through the millions of dollars they spend on lobbying. They will certainly oppose a grassroots wireless network that would compete with their services.
To really make this happen, the hardware to make it work will have to be inexpensive. Maybe something like this would help move things along (it's even based on Linux too)?
Most wireless internet algorithms, AFAIK, are variants of what eventually became Ethernet, (ALOHA, CSMA, etc.) and as such entail everything *I* broadcast being sent to everyone in my subnet/district/whatever. Assuming I'm smart enough to SSH my way past the eavesdroppers (it'd be no less secure than your average college dorm network) What would stop every asshole in America from broadcasting an endless stream of null characters or goatse.cx and making the network unusable? At least in a college dorm, your identity is known and you're jamming your own net access. I can buy a dirt cheap radio device and just drop them all over the city to jam the wireless Internet, and not affect myself at all. Is there any ALOHA-variant that prevents DOS?
----
"Here to discuss how the AOL merger will affect consumers is the CEO of AOL."
grep -ri 'should work'
I know, I know it's still a long ways off, but you have to admin 128k wireless good all over Baltimore DC and like 7 other Major cities (they're shooting for 21 more this year) but alas if i wasn;t being subsidized by work the $74 a month unlimited is completely unreasonable. though since it's n external modem i can attack it to my pda laptop or even a friends desktop while i'm there. the problems with this technology are the latency is HUGE i get 300-1000MS ping all the time, and there are dead spots all over the place (usually 10ftx10ft or so) they're coverage is still spotty even in real areas but conceptually as they grow they'll be able to lower the price, crank up the bandwidth and improve coverage. (maybe some competition would be good)
that's just my 2 cents worth.
I hear alot of hot-heads preaching and freaking out about the evils of government intervention into data communications and the "public wireless net". What is the problem with having the government involved?
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Enough said.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
I've had the idea of a parallel network for quite some time now. Say, if I were to create a wireless network connected to the outside world by way of a large cell-phone tower, and each car had a computer in it with a wireless card, with good error-management and predictive negotiating, you could have a free network in which everyone connected through everyone else, not unlike a huge, wireless, tangled mess of Cat-5. This system has, obviously, a few flaws in it, and it requires a majority of users. But if something like this were actually implemented into cars, at the factory, then the user majority is there from the get-go. At that point, you have something extremely similar to the internet, and it would act as a gateway to the web. Hope I've been Insightful: 3 at least :)
--Josh Adams
-knewter
...because while digital frees up the spectrum in that it takes less spectrum digitally to transmit the same stuff as is transmitted analog, all the other technologies forge ahead, and so technology's rise depends on using up all of our bandwidth, apparently. I personally am looking forward to the day when the spectrum is depleted, not so that wireless tech is shut down, but rather so that more people will focus on making the tech more efficient. The more efficient the program is (and this would be an example of a programming concept flowing over into the real world), the more its users profit.
--Josh Adams
-knewter
Although there are many unused UHF channels, many of them (not all) are free because if there was service there, it would cause interference to the other services.
In 10-20 years' time when analogue is switched off however, who knows which channels will be chosen for wirless comms.
You will find that jumps in technology and services which are costly, but ultimately the way forward are driven by two things. Large corporations and/or the public.
Recently in the UK there has been a big scramble by ISPs to cut prices, fueled by massive public demand. First, they started cutting calls down to local rates wherever you were, then they did away with subscriptions, then they gave you free off peak access, and ultimately they have been driven to 24/7 free access for a subscription charge. Companies have been falling overthemselves to lower the prices to get more customers.
the same goes for wireless internet. Personally I think that it is an inevitability. But who's going to pay and where are we going to get the addresses from?
It won't happen soon, we need to wait for wireless LANs and the like to take off. Companies will then be looking for areas to expand to, and people will be saying "I can walk around my office with my laptop on a network, why not on the train?". Once big companies see that urge, they will act. Companies will put money behind IP6 (I am assuming only from hernick's that this is necessary) and make it work.
It's simply too early for this technology. Wait 10 years and something will have cropped up.
If 2 friends (neighbors) connected their houses wirelessly they would still need an ISP to connect to the real wired internet. If those 2 friends hooked up the neighbors on either side of them, then they hooked up their neighbors, then city blocks hooked to city blocks, then towns to towns, then counties to counties, states to states and so on and so on using satellites????? Eventually (big dream here, what the question really asks?) you would not need ISP's to provide bandwidth for the "wired world". What you would really need is an organization to hand out IP addresses and maybe the hardest part, to enforce the use of those IPs. Preferably a non-profit, non-political outfit unlike what we have today. (remember, its 10 years down the road and we're dreaming) I can see a real high potential for abuse here.
If "everybody" (your desktop, laptop, Sega, toaster, etc) went wireless (possible in 10 years?) this could really be a question needing answered somewhere down the road.
If you're not on somebody's shit list, you're not doing anything worthwhile.....
Cybikos will relay emails for each other, if I understand correctly. I haven't used one, but it sounds like a badass little toy for $99. Plug it into your computer and you can serve as an Internet gateway (CyWIG) for any other Cybiko in range.
Anyone else have one of these yet?
--
You absolutely can not prohibit someone with a scanner from eavsedropping on wireless communications.
You obviously haven't heard about cryptology. Secure connections are impossible to interpret externally. You can always increase the difficulty of understanding encrypted data, by adding bits/etc.
There will never be "a wireless Internet". The Internet will always be a rich amalgam of technologies, wireless being one. Wireless has advantages and disadvantages and it will be applied where it has substantial useful advantages, but that isn't everywhere or even a large percentage of everywhere.
In order for the Internet to function and to provide the kinds of things we're used to it providing, there will necessarily be diversity in access technology and there will be methods of connecting one to another, as there are now. So whatever portion of the Internet is wireless, now and in the future, noone will know or care. All that matters is that packets get through.
What portion of the spectrum is open to the public really doesn't matter IMO. It is important to have the spectrum open to public use, but not because we all need wireless Internet. The two ideas aren't related. (In other words, having the some portion of the spectrum open doesn't yield wireless Internet).
That said, having wireless _access_ to the net is really good and should be widely available for cheap. Ricochet provides an excellent example of this (see www.ricochet.net). But this is unrelated to either the notion of "a wireless Internet" or to public access to the EM spectrum.
-moibus http://moibus.jfm.net/
The frequencies and technologies are already available to implement most of this technology, but with the reallocation -- at least in the US -- of much of the current spectra reserved for television around 2008 (my date may be off) entirely new slices of frequency will probably be made available for general use.
Of course the above statement altruistically assumes that lobbyists won't manage to bribe and cajole their way into the House Telecommunications Subcommittee meetings and railroad the "deliberations" of its money junkies towards assigning vast tracts of "publically-owned" frequency pasture to obscure applications that only have relevance to some megacorporation in Timbuktu. :)
But hey, a guy can dream, right?
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
The frequencies and technologies are already available to implement most of this technology, but with the reallocation -- at least in the US -- of much of the current spectra reserved for television around 2008 (my date may be off) entirely new slices of frequency will probably be made available for general use.
Of course the above statement altruistically assumes that lobbyists won't manage to bribe and cajole their way into the House Telecommunications Subcommittee meetings and railroad the "deliberations" of its money junkies towards assigning vast tracts of "publically-owned" frequency pasture to obscure applications that only have relevance to some megacorporation in Timbuktu. :)
But hey, a guy can dream, right?
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Many parts of the electromagnetic spectrum aren't very good for you, or other living organisms. If EVERYONE were using microwave there would probably be a decrease in the bird population, and trees might start dying, more people would get cancer (if we still used lead paint and stayed indoors we might be ok).
Also think of the lag, going from wireless to hardwire isn't terrible, but going from wireless to wireless to wireless to wireless to wireless...and then back again could get ugly.
As for other problems, someone could start broadcasting noise on every frequency they cared to, and it would probably be a harder to find them if there are others trying to use the same frequencies at the same time.
IPs are and issue but think of what happens if we ever run out of MAC addresses? (probably won't happen too soon, but if we're looking very far in the future....)
These are all valid points to address, but they are not insurmountable, and from my possibly-flawed understanding of the current state of bleeding edge most of them already have decent solutions in development.
Actually I always wondered what a maser attached to a C band satellite antenna feedhorn would do as it tracked from position to position along the Clarke belt, but I digress. :)
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Whoops ... I apologize for making an assertion regarding range based on anecdotal information. The Lucent sales rep says 30 miles -- but I am scouring Lucent's site for anything that even comes close to that.
Basically to extend the range of either BreezeCom or Lucent Orinoco technology you need a reflective external antenna that has been aligned to point directly towards the central omnidirectional antenna.
One provider claiming to be nearing a working 30 mile range is MidCoast.net. From other sources, including ISP Planet the more typical cell size is based on line-of-site, approximately five miles with optimal base antenna placement.
Again I offer my apology for posting anecdotal information.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
The 30 mile range I suspect is based on parabolic antenna to parabolic antenna transmission. 512 users as I recall is the limit for the Orinoco equipment.
Thanks for the pointer to Nokia. :)
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
is being deployed by many ISP's across the United States as the technology becomes more robust, with the ability to serve up to 512 users per antenna/cell at a distance of up to 30 miles with appropriate amplification.
In areas like mine where telcos are slow to deploy digital services and cable access is perpetually "18 months away" wireless 802.11 provides a relatively high-speed low latency connection compared to MSN/Gilat's access. The provider I am working with plans to provide a fixed IP address with a minimum 1.5 Mbps down and 384 Kbps up for $49.95 a month to subscribers within the equipment's five mile range. The theoretical limit of 802.11 currently maxes out at 11 Mbps bidirectional -- Lucent tells us 24 Mbps is on its way.
Unfortunately 802.11 technology is neither inexpensive, nor is it completely immune to terrestrial interference.
I suspect providers can look for the quality of wireless technology to improve dramatically in the coming decade as wireless technologies mature. I do not recall the name or the source of the article but as I recall in one or more major North American cities a company is now looking to provide a dialtone in competition to local POTS via a wireless antenna attached to the subscriber's rooftop. As I recall, the truly wonderful thing about this technology is that each antenna also acts as a repeater for the service.
Imagine something like this paired with 802.11 that allows an ISP or connection provider to extend their range with each install ...
<gloat> In any case the geek in me suspects that roaming through my home town at 1.5 Mbps with a PDA will be quite sweet. I'll let everyone know in a few months. :)
</gloat>
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
The ISP I am working with is using it for point to point, but I note that Canon has a nice 622 Mbps optical link now that might be nice for that application. :)
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
It's a question of when.
With Bluetooth and like technologies in the not-too-distant future a device the size of a wrist watch will hold the equivalent of a PDA -- which will probably network somewhat seamlessly with its surrounding devices. Such a device might enable the strokes of your electronic pen to be stored in your wrist assistant's memory, or to be mirrored by a nearby printing device.
Your body's ability to act as an antenna for RF might allow a scenario similar to the commerical where the shady-looking young fellow is watched by other shoppers as he stuffs items into his coat, only to be stopped by the store attendant as he is leaving "excuse me sir, you forgot your receipt."
As an extreme extrapolation of possibilities, your wrist assistant might be programmed to hold reality interface settings that determine the level of interaction "smart" devices in your immediate environment choose for you.
As an example of what I am talking about, imagine visiting a foreign city for the first time. Upon stepping out of the airplane you set your reality interface to "novice" and into the air say "I need to get to a moderately-priced hotel."
The watch decides it does not have the information you require and so connects to a small transceiver located in a a nearby "smart" traffic sign. It sends an agent out into the local network to find an answer to your question. The agent replies with the pertinent information. After saying "confirm my reservation" your watch messages the hotel, supplies your personal information, and allows the funds for the room to be transfered from your bank account to the hotel. Because your assistant is set to "novice" it inquires whether you wish to walk the 3.5 kilometers to this location, or hail a taxi.
You tell it to secure a taxi, the cab is notified by electronic message, arrives in front of you with your destination pre-arranged, and is paid without you ever having to reach into your pocket or speak a word in the country's language.
Of course any access terminal you step up to will not only greet you in your desired language but will recognize you and conform to your personal preferences.
In your own city a setting of "expert" means that street signs do not provide verbal cues as to your location, and you are not nagged by local ordinance announcements as you commute between locations.
This is on its way -- it's a question of when, not if such technology becomes affordable and widely deployed. I would suspect we could see it in as little as twenty years, but surely within a century I believe such an experience will be commonplace.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
This is a fun thread, Bill. :)
I suspect within twenty years we will have small distance-limited data-carrying nodes connected by wire/fiber to backbone carriers.
You talk about a home-by-home deployment of shared-node transceivers. Ten to twenty years from now if current trends proceed the average home will either possess or be within range of such a device.
Regarding compression technology and embedded processors -- I am not talking about throughput -- I am talking about compression. If I take a newspaper and compress it, it will take less time to transmit, allowing another device more time to use the same frequency. Unless I misunderstand your argument I suspect you are thinking in analog terms, but with digital compression technology we can make one byte count as ten, or twenty, or even fifty, effectively increasing by a factor of ten, twenty, or fifty the total amount of data (depending on type) that can be carried on an available frequency.
As an example the current DiVX compression scheme allows video to be compressed to extremely small files, hence decreasing download times by a factor of ten. In effect this increases apparent bitrate. in regards to compression processor power does have a role in more efficient utilization of available hertz/bps.
As for satellite systems, in higher-end RCA televisions DSS decoders are now built in. At least in the United States many DBS decoders are given away free with a purchase of programming. I bought mine at Radio Shack for $49.95 -- cheaper than a medium grade outdoor VHF antenna.
Regarding upstream data according to current Internet models the amount of data sent by Joe Q. User upstream as he surfs the web is trivial compared to the amount of data he receives. There is no need for a web pad to offer 1.5 Mbps of data per second upstream. Conversely there is no need for an electronic pen to grab 1.5 Mbps of data downstream. If you incorporate handwriting recognition technology into the electronic pen all it needs to do is keep up with the number of characters per second the wielder is capable of writing ...
We do not yet know what devices might be a part of a ubiquitous network, but I am certain with a combination of high speed channel hopping, compression, and proper prioritization/queueing of packets such a network will be possible.
-Joe G.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
The ISP I am refering to is in a small town in Ohio. :)
The sweet part of the setup is that the primary antenna is on a tall building on the highest spot in town, within line of site range of the entire business district. If Lucent's Orinoco performs as advertized I cannot wait to see what roaming is like. There's so much potential (positive and negative) in having city-sized areas covered by a TCP/IP WAN.
I prefer to focus on the positives at this point in time, and deal with the negatives once the system has actually been deployed. <g>
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
This search at IEEE.org yields all of the draft specifications for the protocol, but there does not appear to be an 802.11.org. :)
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
I had a previous comment to another post regarding RF that is pertinent here:
Any electromagnetic field emits RF. Being a digital slave I do not want to live without the benefits todays' technology can bring.
Since the only way to eliminate RF from our lives is to forgo electricity, I'll gladly accept the current low risks for the benefits they entail, even if that means that I might be in the 0.001% of persons who could have the odd malignant tumor triggered by my cordless phone.
I could also be one of the 0.001% of creatures exterminated by an asteroid strike, or the 0.001% of creatures struck and killed by frozen falling airplane sewage ...
The sun generates copious amounts of harmful radiation and kills more people per country per year than have been killed by every poorly-shielded electronic device in existence since electricity was first harnessed, but I haven't heard anyone talking about banning it ...
(yet)
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
We only need a protocol that can flexibly recognize what is "local" and what is "remote."
When we have such a protocol then we can simply extend the current infrastructure to include devices that participate in our ubiquitous local network in a fashion similar to IP Masquerading or connection sharing ...
The whole Internet does not need to know every device sharing the IP addy at your.connection.mondo-highspeed-net.com. Every device sharing the IP addy at your.connection.mondo-highspeed-net.com need not speak to the whole Internet. :)
The hard part is making certain that your George Jetson videophonebookpad uses YOUR connection and not your neighbor's, and knows whether or not when it is out of range of your home network it is allowed to connect to the NetWorkAtLarge.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
I think what will make a ubiquitous wireless environment possible is an increase in the processing power of embedded systems.
We will obviously not have more frequencies available, but I suspect we will be able to use alloted frequencies more wisely, and possibly devise some more robust low power transmission schemes.
Remember how large "wireless phones" were in the early 90's? Remember how terrible the sound could be? Look at how small they have become, and yet their sound has also generally improved significantly.
We have not dumped more wattage into cell transmission technology. We certainly have not dramatically increased the amount of alloted frequency available to place a single cell call. What we have done is to employ technologies like realtime compression and high-speed channel switching/frequency hopping. :)
On a similar note we now cram two hundred plus channels of high quality video into the same amount of bandwidth used by twenty analog video channels -- using advanced compression technology. The set top DSS boxes used to weigh five kilograms and cost several hundred dollars. Now they weigh under a kilogram and cost less than fifty.
Technology marches forward. :)
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Any electromagnetic field emits RF. Being a digital slave I do not want to live without the benefits todays' technology can bring.
Since the only way to eliminate RF from our lives is to forgo electricity, I'll gladly accept the current low risks for the benefits they entail, even if that means that I might be in the 0.001% of persons who could have the odd tumor triggered by my cordless phone.
I could also be one of the 0.001% of creatures exterminated by an asteroid strike, or the 0.001% of creatures struck and killed by frozen falling airplane sewage ...
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Good old Sol also emits cancer-causing energy, but I do not see anyone working to regulate it other than Coppertone. :)
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Heh, with a wireless ubiquitous network the advertisements could follow you around through your day to day life, customized to your known preferences.
When you are within range advertisers could specifically target you with ads calculated to grab your attention -- displayed on public access surfaces ...
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Freely available wireless communication has been around since the 1920s. It's called amateur radio. In some places it's the only means of communication available.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
How about if those TV stations were transmitting their content as packets over the IP network? Then you could have even more of them and an "even worse" society!
http://www.gimbo.org.uk/
People need to seriously start considering the health risks of living with constant high frequency RF. As an EE/CE, I don't feel very comfortable talking on cell phones a long time. I sure as hell don't want tons of 2.4GHz traffic beaming through my house. (BTW that's about the same wave length as a microwave oven)
#1) The FCC exists and acts unconstitionally; the congress was outside it's legal authority establishing it. (See Art 1 Sec 8, Amd 1, Amd 9, and Amd 10)
#2) Corporations are not natural people. They exist only in the legal fiction (laws) created by the State. Without s State, you can not have a corporation. So you can see your post does not make much sense to us Anarchists.
#3) Businesses does not force you to do things at the barrel of a gun. Governments do. Businesses that do, are government. It's obvious which one you stand more to lose to...
#4) Man has not 'flocked' to government. He has been forced into it by other men. I don't see any of us having much of a choice, now do we? (Also Historically the minimal and governmentless societies have been the most peaceful. (IE Celts vs Romans)
#5) Anarchism is not justified by the ideal that men are basically good. It is justified that men are bascially evil, and it is exactly those men that should not have priviledge over other men. (In plain english. It's those same scumbags that make up the govenment...only a HIGHER percentage)
#6) It is time for the aristocracy (governments) of the world to step aside and let men live free. They do nothing for you, only to you. Only the 'house nigger mentality' can justify otherwise.
5 GHz Wireless Networking With CMOS Transceivers
and
Aussies Put Old Pay-TV Dishes To Use -- As A LAN
Those who don't read
Once again doing my part for the free exchange of information.
All comments Copyright 2001 Electronic Frontier Foundation
when microsoft and starbucks decide to put it on.
Radio Bandwidth is a national treasure, and I would certainly hope any plan to give away this bandwidth to the "people" would also consider that it is also taking the revenue from it's lease away from the "people". Frankly, I doubt the benifit could ever outweight the cost especially when the cost of policing this free spectrum is factored in.
Sprint offers wireless Internet now. It is not a totally wireless net, of course, but its a look at the beginning. It's still tied to land lines, I know don't flame me. But its still cool, and a step towards a widespread wireless internet.
http://www.sprintbroadband.com/index.html
Derek
A hurdle, but not insurmountable. I suspect that if enough Aussies got together and formed a public wireless network consortium (run as a business), paid membership fees, and with this income became a licenced telecommunications provider, we could do something.
And that something of course would be for every member to run a little 802.11 (or whatever, but we pick that 'cause it's standard!) base station and hopefully have enough people to provide decent coverage. And then you probably need some backbone links between base stations (and some very good routing engineers!)...
(I know this is being done on a limited scale in Canberra and other places, however I suspect these things are not 100% within the law and will get stomped on when it pops up on the radar screens of our bureaucrats.)
Of course, you need accounts and such to actually run the business, but hopefully not many.
Am I crazy? Anyone interested?
No such thing as unlimited bandwidth
Bluetooth is designed for very low range applications. As in several hundred feet. Of course you can strengthen and direct the signal to extend the range, but something worth pointing out is that even now in Bluetooth's infancy stage it is having problems with frequency overlap of multiple devices in an area.
> I'd rather see what happens when normal people
> and capitalisim kick in. That's what spawned the
> tremendous growth of the Internet we have
> today... like it or not.
What spawned the tremendous growth was not normal people and capitalism.
It was a bunch of people giving stuff out for free.
HTML was free.
Mozilla was free.
That is very unlike capitalism.
Also HTML and Mozilla made it reasonably easy for normal people to read AND write web documents.
Why not extend this idea and have each mobile device route traffic from other mobile devices to the base station, so if I for example was out of reach of the base station, but close enough to you then my traffic would route through you and then to the base station. It might add a few hops to get to where you want to go, but for a lot of applications this is just fine.
If every cell phone, pda, laptop, etc, etc. could do this it would quickly role out wireless communication without having to put up base stations everywhere.
Is this about some new development? And which infrastucture? The telephone companies providing Modem service, or more Internet specific backbone stuff?
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Also, you would have to have a pretty retarded PDA if it were to just accept what it's given without any sort of verification and display it (as with your kiddie porn example)
Why should wireless internet be free, when wired isn't? Most of us pay for our internet connections in one way or another (either money or tuition or by having a job with a company). Does anybody see the 3rd generation Wireless network which according to areputable family friend (sorry, don't have the citation) will top 8 billion dollars being opened up for free? The phone network has been around for decades and still costs money. The only reason it's running scared is because of IP, and as previously mentioned, Internet isn't free. If you mean free as in speech, I don't see why the wireless internet wouldn't have the same freedoms that the wired would. And in summation, it's not economically feasible to open it up. This is typical /. Let's through in some buzzwords (wireless, free) and even better confuse them, and post a story.
If you want free internet, try putting up the money. Unfortunately, the hardware necessary is a lot more expensive to replicate than software.
In the long run, the main source of income is likely to be revenue from on-line services that actually provide value as opposed to a simple net connection.
Although that said I don't know if the current situation WRT dotcoms has changed that at all.
The advantage of cellular internet access, is that micropayments become feasible, by adding them to your phone bill. And so you can begin to pay for services that are useful to you, but not vey much.
Although I am not sure what this means for those harcore types that tend to stick with free everything anyway, I suppose they are a minority with which the phone companies will just have to cut their losses.
Radio stations can't just raise their power whenever they see fit... they have to go through a bunch of FCC red-tape, plus pay substantially more $$$/Watt. And just because l0pht uses HAM radio packet transfers to transmit ther 31337 ju4r3z doesn't mean that the idea of HAM Internet is compeltely flawed... Hell why don't we just say that the Internet helps spread computer viruses, illegal copies of software,movies and music, et cetera, and we should see to it that the government takes control of it so we can have a "safer" Internet. No thanks. I'd rather see what happens when normal people and capitalisim kick in. That's what spawned the tremendous growth of the Internet we have today... like it or not.
amen.
Companies don't agree to standards because they all just want to use *their* way of communications. I think the same thing happened with the major networks trying to decide on a standard for DTV... It's not the government or the FCC being greedy, or even companies... its just the fact that companies usually have to license technology from other companies if their format doesn't win the standards war.
Here's some more...
Capability to support circuit and packet data at high bit rates:
* 144 kilobits/second or higher in high mobility (vehicular) traffic
* 384 kilobits/second for pedestrian traffic
* 2 Megabits/second or higher for indoor traffic
Click here for the link
I refuse to believe radio pirates are raking havoc on the airwaves even in places where they have a major presence; such as the greater Miami area for example. It's not very hard to make a "clean" station that has no problem locking in to its assigned frequency instead of interfearing with others. *ANYWAYS* They way I see it, the FCC should be obligated to assign a block of frequencies to the public a la CB Radios back in the day. I thought I heard somewhere a while back that some HAM operators were able to "transmit computer packets" back and forth via some sort of gizmo... long distance filesharing... neato. Anyone have any clue what I'm talking about?
The usage of data services (and hence the revenue) is only 1% even in Japan. So any solution has got to pay for itself on something other than data. Maby in 10 years time we will have 50% of usage being data but for the vast majority that isn't happening yet.
It's too slow, I here you say, well GSM is the world standard, you poor backwards in the US may catch with the rest of the world in the next few years. 9.6K is availabe everywhere, 28.8k is available on a few networks, and GPRS is just starting to roll.
I personally find that 9.6k is adequate for collecting emails and some moderate surfing such as /.
try 2005. funny that nobody knows about it yet...
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
And take away the only FREE (and legal) alternative to cable/satelite?
I don't think so, not everybody is willing to pay for those services you know.
Dark Nexus
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
You need decent bandwidth to stream video off of the internet.
Besides, the only TV you can get off the net that I know of at the moment (so that doesn't include the still-defunct ICraveTV) is the news channels.
Dark Nexus
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
They are, however, free to the end user as far as recurring fees go - once you've bought the TV and a set of rabbit ears, you just have to pay for the electricity.
This is what I'm getting at.
Also, anybody who has played with receiving on-air stations knows that consecutive channels interfere with each other.
This means that channel 5 interferes with 4 and 6, etc.
Dark Nexus
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
> thought I heard somewhere a while back that some HAM operators were able to "transmit computer packets" back and forth via some sort of gizmo... long distance filesharing... neato. Anyone have any clue what I'm talking about?
That gizmo is called a packet modem.. and the packet modem was what the ethernet cards were designed after. Hams found out they could send stuff faster if they skipped the antenna and only had cable between the packet modems.
In all reality, all your neato ethernet connected boxes are just communicating via a glorified packet modem aka: analog. It's funny the number of people that consider their wonderful lans to be digital connections.
Fiber is the only definate digital connection (well with current fiber technology)
Consider yourself blessed if you are sneezed on by a dragon and only get wet, it could have been a fireball.
I hear alot of hot-heads preaching and freaking out about the evils of government intervention into data communications and the "public wireless net". What is the problem with having the government involved? Because the FBI or other agencies might spy on us? I would rather the government spy on me than some company and with the rampant anarchy free and open wireless would bring that is exactly what would happen. The fact of the matter is, without government regulation, the new internet would be something like the old west. It would be everyman for his own data, protecting it from those who would use it for ill ends and with the gov. out of the picture there would be no-one to fall back on when something wrong happened. The point of governments is to protect citizens from outside harm AND themselves. If one is to look through history,man has flocked to bigger and more expansive governments, not the other way around. Furthermore, all you anarchists out there have a similar problem: You seem to envision the free/public/unregulated internet as filled with the type of people you are, that is to say men with a code of ethics about data security etc. You think that clandestine groups won't have a hand? Do you think large corporations won't be there dicking you? GROW UP! Corporations have so much more to gain from deregulation and "anarchy" than you do. True, it might be a little more annoying to have governmental red-tape but it will also be a whole lot more secure for the every-day citizen.
I think it'll be funny when all of the internet becomes wireless, imaging the fun you could have with your next door neighbour if you changed frequency and send his packets off to antartica or something.
D.I.R.C. provides a relay network that made of just end-user nodes: It doesn't need any central authority or installation to enable communication within the network. Gateways (installation and operation) to other networks have to be paid for if you use them, but other than that, a personal relay point can be bought and operated without running costs except for electricity. AFAIK there have been talks to integrate the technology into cars to create ad-hoc networks through which traffic information can be propagated.
My concern is that, while this spectrum will be *technically* no longer required, the current corporate owners will insist on their claim to it, and it will simply be used for additional corporate business.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Bah, I hate not being able to check back on these things to reply to posts, allways soo late that noone really notices..
Basically, a few years ago when I was big into ham radio (and talked all the time on it), You had to open the radio and hook 9600 baud packet modems directly to the output of the radio (*before* it got to the audio circuit and got distorted by it)..
Then 9600baud capable radios came out that already brought that certain connection out to a port that could be plugged directly into.
I can assume that this would make it easier to connect 56k packet modems up to it.
I know this.. I'm a licensed ham, n9xlc.
also, your idea that TNC's control what freq's a radio is on is hogwash, unless you're talking about 9600baud TNC's.. which I don't know much about. My AEA PK-12 (1200baud) required you to set the radio to the desired freq BEFORE you tried to connect to whatever station. This is not comparable to a modem dialing.
BTW, if you see a reasonably intelligent post about ham radio (like my post above).. You can most likely assume that the poster is a ham radio operator. I do not need told what my equipment is or does.
-since when did 'MTV' stand for Real World Television instead of MUSIC television?
Yeah dammit.. They don't want to *work* for the radio freq, or even share it with the citizens.. they'd rather the government make the freqs common only to the companies who work for the gov (ie, pay the gov money)
After all, if the freqs were given to the communist consumer.. then we'd prolly have a 'tragedy of the commons' type situation..
(sarcasm! Read it again and think about it)
-since when did 'MTV' stand for Real World Television instead of MUSIC television?
Its a free country.. now pay for your freqs
-since when did 'MTV' stand for Real World Television instead of MUSIC television?
Unfortunately packet radio isn't very fast.
The most common mode that you find is 1200 baud.. after that is 9600baud.. It's sad, but I think the popularity of the Internet killed many things.. Telco bbs' and packet radio, for the most part.
Of course I've been hearing about 56 or 64k connections for several years now.. but they are still rare. Noone likes to build their own equipment anymore and even if you buy them somewhere.. well, you have to open your radio to make a mod for a 9600baud packet modem.. unless it already has a connection, I'm pretty sure that no radio has support for more than 9600baud tho..
I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of commercial, unlicensed, 64k or 128k (plus encrypted), semi-long range (10-50miles), packet modem.. and it would be cheap (HA!, I should ask for peace on earth while I'm at it)
The current marriage of coperations and government will prevent anything of the sort from happening.. Anything that would slightly upset the balance quo like that would be veto'd pretty fast.
-since when did 'MTV' stand for Real World Television instead of MUSIC television?
Out here in Illinois, NIU uses a wireless connection to connect a local community college to the internet. And for many other rural areas, like DeKalb County, IL it is cheaper than running land lines for the simple fact that everything is so far apart.
As mention above, the phone companies might/are charging to use their infrastructure. When I go back to my parents' place in a suburb of Chicago, DSL is about $30-$40 a month with no charges from Ameritech (SBC). However, at my apartment at school, we get a $35 charge from the phone company AND another $35 charge from our ISP (Verizon doesn't act as the ISP in my area).
That sounds cheap for the end user, but after looking at the costs for the ISP, things can be REALLY expensive. Just looking at some of Cisco's price for large area connectivity (8km+). You are REALLY getting expensive. So if this were to be a public system, who would foot the bill? Who would provide the backbone? Might this end up just going back to the phone companies anyway?
http://www.teledesic.com/ ever hear of Craig McCaw? Or Bill Gates? Go forth and marvel. Some one is ten years ahead of you!
By UK, I assume you mean England. Furthermore I suspect you are referring to the London metro area. It is really difficult to imagine this technology in the remote reaches of the far-flung Empire. And if you are referring to London, how do we extrapolate this news to the requirements for worldwide wireless internet?
...omphaloskepsis often...
Yes, the only streaming-video I saw sonline was news, and that makes sense since the video quality of news is more or less irrelevant: sound is much more important.
Now, think a moment about it, why would you want to watch a full movie on a computer screen. I don't know but I prefer a 37" 16:9 TV screen over a 19" (21" if you're lucky) to watch anything...Call me old-fashioned, but I think a lot of people think like me.
I woudn't watch a DVD on my computer either....
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
~
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
All the new Orinoco cards carry that logo.
~
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Also, speaking of the 622 Mbps optical links, it sounds like what AirFiber is using in their system described on this page.
~
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
At the moment there is a huge amount of the spectrum (comparitivly speaking) allocated to conventional analogue radio and television broadcast which will become obselete as we all move to digital radio (far narrower bandwidth requirement) and satalite broadcast, etc, so I guess there is an area of the spectrrum which could be freed up - a rather large chunk at that!
--
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/pktf.html
I have been using packet radio to access the internet since about 1989. It was slow access back then - and is still slow now - but with the increasing popularity of spread-spectrum, it's getting a bit more useable for what I use it for - that being remote control of items and telemetry.
Ummm.... At 3Com we've already deployed this technology in Korea and they can't get enough of it. Our first 3G trials have T-1 speeds to the pocket and we anticipate up to 10MB shortly with possibilities in the 50 or so MB range. While most are correct in that the US has some internal FCC weirdness to overcome before rollout, 3G is here and our labs are progressing to new speeds every day. The entire 2G revolution and "2.5G" revolution (all CDMA, BTW) were researched and deployed by 3Com first. We currently hold the largest number of CDMA terminations in he world, are the largest provider of "2.5G" implementation, and are the first to run 3G (wherever we choose to run it...*sigh*). Head's up! Cool stuff coming, just gotta wade through Washington red tape first! --Q
#!/Jerald
A public wireless Internet is definitely possible. Hams already have a widespread RF TCP/IP
network. Unfortunately, most RF links are very slow. Sending data over the radio at anything
close to a reasonable speed takes a lot of bandwidth. The radio bands are already very crowded in
populated areas. For a wireless 'net to actually happen, a more efficient way of sending data over
RF will need to be invented. The other solution would be to use large numbers of very low power
stations. These would need to be incredibly inexpensive for enough to be installed to create a
reasonable coverage area.
I hope that use of a wireless net doesn't become too common for a while. While one could be
created today, it would waste way too much bandwidth. We need to create a wireless system that
doesn't create more radio noise than already exists. Some bandwidth needs to remain free for
hams, emergency services, and radio astronomy.
-thz
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
www.webwirelessnow.com claims to provide everyone free internet access, who has a cell phone.
Might be worth to check out.
cheers
mike
Bandwidth, kids, bandwidth. Think of the kind of infrastructure it will take to support a major area such as San Francisco/San Jose, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc.
I don't know what your talking about, but I've never heard of anyone having to open up and modify their radio to get packet to work. That's what the TNC is for. The TNC (Terminal Node Controller) is analagous to a modem, in that it controls which freqs the radio is currently tuned into, like the way a modem controls what phone numbers the phone line connects to. It also modulates and demodulates the signal, just like a modem. The big problem with packet radio is that for larger bandwidths, you need higher frequencies. And the ham bands high enough to do anything comparing to cable or DSL requires line of sight, and therefore is pretty much useless.
"Guerilla.net" has such a outre ring to it, doesn't it? It made me feel like buying a copy of Mother Jones, until I looked at the web site and realized that it's talking about a ham-radio network.
The idea is nice: an independent, censor-proof wireless alternative to the Internet. It has a nice, warm, "Whole Earth Epilogue" kind of feel to it. It's the sort of idea that makes one think of a future where everyone is free to speak their mind and rail away against politicians of all stripes without fear of reprisal or judgement.
In other words, Usenet, but without the reliability and without most of the audience.
Long story short: don't confuse the medium with the message. Anonymity is not equal to freedom, but even if it were, it's very easy to stay anonymous on Usenet, and very hard on a radio.
Bill, W1AC
P.S. I am not over 50, I don't smoke, and I don't have a pot belly.
I'll weigh in One Last Time(TM), and then go back to my mundane life:
Could be - but the article was about a wireless network, not an extension of the cellular one we already have. Well, I have to disagree. The drivers aren't there for that kind of a technology:- Spectrum space costs big bucks: the federal government's budget was balanced by the spectrum auctions, and they ain't gonna turn their backs on that kind of a revenue stream. Those that pay will want control, and that obviates a decentralized paradigm.
- Labor costs are born by the home owner with cable or dsl installations: radio requires much more expertise and equipment.
- Installation costs ditto.
- Wire is more reliable.
- Wire has higher bandwidth.
- The FCC isn't involved if you use wire.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but we'd have to have very dramatic increases in wireline pricing before it would be economically viable. Nope, sorry, my ciruit breaker trips at this point. Compression is not limitless, and the practical limits for "home use" devices were reached years ago.Of course, I am thinking in throughput terms: bits are bits, and the time it takes to send them from one place to another is what limits your options.
The throughput possible with radio transmission is already at the Shannon limit for "part 15" devices, and unless you're arguing that the average homeowner will pay for a coax cable and dish (To where? Aimed at what?), then added compression won't increase throughput.
If we're hypothesizing a wireless network, then either it has to be nondirectional for the nodes to talk to each other, or it has to be an MDS dirivative in order to get respectable bandwidth.
- MDS won't work, for the reasons I gave before: wire is cheaper.
- Cooperating nodes won't work, because they suffer from the Betamax dilemma: who's going to be first to buy something they can't use until everybody else buys one?
As I said, I worked on this when hams first got into IP and packet radio. The greatest limitation to spreading a viable network turned out to be the need for sharing: there isn't a sufficient density of sites to make non-directional transmission feasable, and getting to central nodes required more investment than most could make (time/money/expertise). These were hard core techies, too: your average homeowner is going to want it to work out of the box, not after putting a ground plane 70' up in a tree like I did.A wireless Internet is proscribed not so much by our technology - cellular doesn't use anything new, just the old stuff in different ways - but by human nature. It is, however, a vicious circle: unless (I did not say "until") the technology advances to a point where plug 'n pray devices can work at exurban distances, it won't be viable. As before, I'll be delighted if I'm wrong.
Bill, W1AC
As I said, I'll be delighted if I'm wrong, but this doesn't sound like the solution. It's nice to be buzzword-compliant, but the RF decks I worked on as a ham had longer range than this, and they still wouldn't work.
You have three problems here:
Sorry, this just isn't the panacea. I didn't see any mention of throughput on the site, but I doubt it's any significant fraction of LAN speed, and Zeus clearly states that their transceivers are intended to hook up serial devices to a computer. In other words, they're ready to trickle data, not "pump" it.
Bill
The systems' processing power is moot: current chips are able to process much more data than they can receive, and even in a network of allied peers where each carries some of the data for others, the processing power has been available for years. It's not a question of how quickly we can process the data, but how quickly we can move it from point to point.
The scheme we would need for a wireless internet is one that will place a cooperating shared-node transceiver into every home in the nation. The limiting factor is distance.
No, what we've done is put a lot of small cell transceivers into every village, hamlet, suburb, town, city, and building in the nation - and they're all hooked up by wire. You're making my argument for me here: the infrastructure required for cellular distribution is several orders of magnitude greater than the existing wire plant.
Well, I'll believe it when I see it working with typical TV transmit powers and rabbit-ears at each receiver, but I digress. We're talking about a bidirectional network here, not a broadcast system with 1/2 meter dishes. Even with asymetric bandwidth, the "haulback" problem remains, and most systems solve it by using wire.
As for compression: we could compress the daily newspaper onto a single floppy, but the problem of how to deliver it would still remain. Compression techniques are usefull only where there's enough data going to a single receiver to make it worthwhile. For the average net user, it doesn't track: while compression might be useful between a "community" server and an Internet peering point, the wireless dilemma reamins one of transporting bits to home users without requiring a cellular network that would cost a lot more than wire. We can compress the data all we want, but we've still got to deliver it, and that's where wireless falls off the curve: even at the abysmally low bit rates hams used, there are too many trees in the way between the server and the user.
Wireless is often pitched as a seductive "last mile" solution to allow bypass of the PSTN or cable. It's been tried before, and the companies that did are now footnotes in business school textbooks about what does and doesn't work. There just aren't enough viable central distribution points to allow plug 'n pray wireless networks, and absent an as-yet-undiscovered breakthrough that lowers the path loss of the typical microwave signal, we're stuck with wire.
The technology may march forward, but the square-law limit remains. A wireless network for the Internet is not a realistic possibility at this time.
Bill
OK, let me apologize right up front for throwing cold water on this idea.
It's a great idea. Really. The thought of freeing people from the wired network is great.
Unfortunately, we need wires to make the Internet work. The problem isn't bandwidth, but rather bit rate: in order to get close to the transfer rates we now enjoy in the wired world, we'd need a large infrastructure of radio relay sites, which would, in turn, need a large infrastructure of point-to-point links in between them.
I worked (a lot) on this problem as a ham operator, when the Internet first became popular and hams were trying to implement a ham-radio version of IP. Pioneers such as Phil Karn (now at Qualcom) put out shareware that allowed hams to connect PC's to "modems", which in turn were connected to radios.
It didn't work. The limitation was distance: in order to get a signal from a typical user to a "server", the user often had to have his signal realyed through three or four other hams before he even reached the server, and the bit rate (try not to faint...) was seldom over 1,200 bps.
Yes, that's right: 1200 bps, or about 1/46th of what your 56k modem delivers. Now, I know that the new wireless cards have much higher bit rates, but they also have dramatically shorter distances.
Unless we're all willing to put a microwave dish on our tower - uh, you do have a tower, right? - it's not going to be possible with current paradigms.
For distributed wireless to work, it would need these advances:
It's a great idea, and I was it's biggest fan, but there's too much distance to cover and you can't break the laws of physics. I'll be delighted if I'm wrong.
Bill, W1AC
It's kind of sad I suppose that if such a systems becomes truely popular it'll have to be controlled by some form of organisation to be truely feasible.
Wireless space isn't exactly unused and I'd rather not end up having to use sensitive medical equipment with some schmuck's out there hammering the airwaves with his own homemade 20kw amplifier attached to a +12db Yagi pointed across the hospital. Just tune into the old 27 mhz CB band these days, or for that matter even the UHF CB band for an example. DSSS and FHSS equipment isn't designed to do large scale "cell based" wan's. Rather, I recon those sort of networks will come out of the Mobile phone tech (very soon 3G EDGE+GPRS tech at 384Kbits) which are quite adept at handling wide area coverage.
just my 2c worth
--
Jon - TheSpork
A community access DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting) could potentialy solve many problems with a public wireless internet. It provides MPEG-2 packets for community tv channels, mp3 packets for community radio, auxilary data packets for community internet and a CAS (content authorisation system) for privacy.
Right now setting up for DVB is obscenely expensive (the ammount of money my employer is shelling out is just plain scary) but this will come down, the fact that DVB is an open standard means that it can be implemented with free software on commodity hardware (Moores Law). linuxtv.org has resources on DVB with linux.
The only major problem I can see is transmission, as this will require real infastructure that can't be done with software on cheap commodity hardware. It could be done however, if gov't required existing broadcasters to share their transmitters. SBS shares ABC's transmitter in Sydney for analogue broadcasts, though I don't know if it can actually be done with digital tv (I'm not an RF type person, anyone care to comment?).
Just some stuff I've been thinking about lately.
When it absolutely positively has to be there.
In WWII they called these things "barrage balloons" and used them to confound the other guys aircraft. I bet the various pilots assoc. would be real happy to see this technique adopted! I especially like the part where they include two fixed wing aircraft to deploy when the weather is too rough for the balloon. How thoughful.
It seems I remember something about either address allocation having to be free, or the actual transit over the network...I'm not sure which, and I can't find any information on it right now, but I thought either way, it'd be of particular interest with regards to (and possibly opposition of) your idea of micropayments for bandwidth and such.
I'll try to find out some more info on this; anyone know much else about it?
]I do, however, know for a fact that you're quite a bit more than wrong about the lack of services over the IPv6 network. They are plentiful, for the users and developers using the current testbed (aka the 6bone). DHIS is one of many free providers of IPv6 testing address allocation, Freenet6 is another. And there are numerous IPv6 capable sites, including FreeBSD's site, portions of Microsoft's site, NASA...
If you check out the main IPv6 sites, such as the 6bone, IPv6.org, IPv6Forum, and a whole lot of others, you'll find the network is quite extensive. Work is being done quite a bit, and it's more than just talk.
Many parts of the electromagnetic spectrum aren't very good for you, or other living organisms. If EVERYONE were using microwave there would probably be a decrease in the bird population, and trees might start dying, more people would get cancer (if we still used lead paint and stayed indoors we might be ok). Sunspots would cause some interesting interference (everybody remember sunspots?) Also think of the lag, going from wireless to hardwire isn't terrible, but going from wireless to wireless to wireless to wireless to wireless...and then back again could get ugly. As far as getting into other's signals and messing with them: its harder to do it when you don't have direct access to the signal, but if its wireless you could certainly get someone elses downstream traffic, upstream would probably require you to be in between them and their tower (or whatever). As for other problems, someone could start broadcasting noise on every frequency they cared to, and it would probably be a harder to find them if there are others trying to use the same frequencies at the same time. IPs are and issue but think of what happens if we ever run out of MAC addresses? (probably won't happen too soon, but if we're looking very far in the future....)
Does 802.11b have a logo? I can just imagine places like cafes, airports and other public places displaying a logo to show they have wireless access to the internet. It would be sort of like the now defunct Rabbit CT2 phone system in the UK or Walkabout in Australia. Where ever you see the logo you can communicate.
How well would this scale up? I remember reading a while ago that gNutella was worried about Napster getting banned, because they would get a flood of new users, and that system doesn't scale up well. As I recall (and understand it), each client forwards queries (which have a TTL attached) until either TTL==0 or it finds what it's looking for. If packets were hopping from wireless to wireless to wireless, it would both put a load on each wireless (esp. the last one) for passing along packets and on bandwidth.
I don't claim to have a good understanding on how this would work, but I think *somebody* should probably worry about it.
-Jason-
Eagles may soar free and proud through the air, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
In order for a wireless internet to be as successful and universal as the land-line internet the wireless net must follow the same evolution as the PC, the internet, and LINUX.
The first people to use these technologies were the technically adept who tinkered with stuff and made it work, then improved and developed the systems they had created. Eventually a wider base of technically adept users began to adopt the technology as it became more robust and user friendly. Then finally after years, the technology trickled down to the average consumer.
So the thought of all these nifty web appliances popping up in the near future is somewhat ignorant. there is virtually no wireless internet infrastructure (unless you count cell-phone and pager networks) airlink ethernet systems are attractive, but not nearly as powerful as they need to be. There are few if any products attempting to deliver true internet access (not the AT&T WirelessWeb) at this time.
so in conclusion:
Yes wireless internet is feasable, and yes it is coming, but it won't be here overnight nor will it arrive with a sudden roar, but rather it will grow slowlyover the next several years before it really explodes.
The simplest act of surrealism is to walk out into the street, gun in hand, and shoot at random
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
First off, I work in television, and no one wants to spend the money on a digital system when the analog works just fine. TRUST ME ON THIS. Second, just like the man said up there in the previous post, there is no way that all of the unused space be used. Cell tech is microwave, UHF is a form of high frequency radio waves. The physics of transmitting on that band are cost prohibitive, and constructive interference is a monster bitch. If you don't understand this, call up one of your physics-major buddies and let him throw it out for you, it will kill that argument completely. Third, the internet works great in terms of cost. For the price of cable TV I can get anything I want. If you think that serving the public interests is what it is all about, consider this, DID PBS SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST? The public viewer as a whole is very content specific. NBC serves the public interest better than NPR ever has... they are the ones with the focus groups, not PBS. Free in my television business means that you pay for it some other way, as in terms of cost, or if you're British, watchable quality of media.
Everybody is already fighting over the allocation of frequency bands; the spectrum is clogged. See how much telephone companies are willing to pay in auctions for UMTS licenses? A public wireless network is quite possible, but such a service will be for a fee.
The bandwidth is there but the bills are paid. They take money from major corporations in return for commercial airtime. Expect public wireless to be riddled with it.
What are the health risks invloved? It's proven that powerlines and power station outposts emit cancer causing energy.
.
Christopher Ogg and his company, Wireless Island is actually setting up a wireless internet infrastructure on Prince Edward Island, Canada. Visit their site: http://www.wirelessisland.net
The US Government and particularly the FCC are too greedy with bandwith to allow anything like this to happen in the US. How much money does the Federal government make from just auctioning off frequencies? All of a sudden, they will say, "Hey! Let's just give away free bandwith for the country to use." I think not. We can't even decide on a fucking standard for cellphone networks here. BTW, SprintPCS sucks.
But most networks are not encrypted.
I think the biggest problem with a wireless internet would be that everybody could intercept all data that is sent within a 100 feet (or is it more?) radius with the help of a sniffer.
Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Gnu'sNotUnix
There's another interesting artical about wireless phones and linux here.
Ricochet (designed and built by Metricom) offers 128kbps speed (twice the speed of dialup modems, same as top end ISDN, and same as low end DSL) TCP/IP connectivity. Check http://www.metricom.com or http://www.ricochet.net for more information. It works, and it works well. The technology is not based on cell phone type protocols (not CDMA, GSM, HDR, CPDP, etc) but is using spread spectrum techniques in a scheme invented by Metricom. The spectrum used is the unlicensed bands at 9xx MHz and 2.4 GHz, and Ricochet devices follows all the spectrum sharing rules required by those spots of spectrum. This is the service that Metricom has been promising for years now. An earlier version, Ricochet1 (28.8kbps), has been running for over 5 years -- these guys have got lots of real world experience running a wide area wireless TCP/IP data network, unlike these johnny-come-lately cell phone companies with their pie-in-the-sky 3G claims.
It is currently deployed in 12 (or so) U.S. cities and Metricom has plans to have it deployed in 45+ U.S. cities by the end of 2001. By "cities" I mean "metripolitan areas" -- The whole SF Bay Area counts as one of those 12 cities, for example.
It is charged at a flat rate per month, not usage sensitive, and there's no hidden charges anywhere. They want people to use the thing, and forsee that people don't want to be limited by location any more. Hardware capabilities have grown enough that you can make a pretty decent stab at providing desktop equivalent computing power in a portable package (so long as you don't limit yourself to a tiny PDA sized screen).
How do all you "everything must be free" mavens expect for a totally free wireless net to be properly paid for and maintained?? Yes, you can string a bunch of 802.11 devices across a city. Then that city is wired at ethernet speed for TCP/IP connectivity. Okay, cool, who's going to pay the bandwidth charges to gateway that free wireless net out to The Internet?? Who's going to pay a staff to maintain the net?? Who's going to troubleshoot the network (this requires staff) to keep it running?? If someones node breaks, are they very likely to replace it, or are they just going to forget to do anything??
The advantage of paying for a service, is that you encourage that service to continue existing.
- David
While 802.11b is the current defacto technology for these people (its the *only* technology easily available ;) the IEEE 802.16 standard, when it comes out, should overcome many concerns relating to range and third-party hacks to increase range. Why? Because it is being designed especially for Wireless *Metropolitan* Area Networks (WMAN).
Once thise standard is finalised, it will be interesting to see whether or not it is usable by the public, its entirely possible that it could be solely targetted (in terms of pricing/availability) at corporations.
What matters though is that the fact that the IEEE are developing the standard- this means that such networks are possible. And since the 802 suite of standards are all alike in many ways, it should be easily possible to 'bend' current 802.11b offerings to these purposes.
Read more at:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/
Its currently available in the Reading and Leeds areas with many more areas coming online early this year. http://www.tele2.co.uk/sales4.html
All those unused television UHF channels have great bandwidth possibilities...
I'd like to see a grass roots effort in which a bunch of people just buy Apple Airports and the like, turn on DHCP and NAT, and hand out connections to everyone in range of their station. That way, anyone with an 802.11 equipped laptop, PDA, or even desktop could hook up wirelessly while in that area. I don't think it'd supplant the existing network, as I wouldn't give up my cable modem and "real" IP address for a NAT from a neighbor, but it'd be great for traveling.
It'd be really cool when the 802.11 Springboard module comes out for my Handspring Visor, imagine walking around the city, and being connected in various places.
I'm thinking of buying an Apple Airport for home, maybe I'll set mine up to let anyone with 802.11 use it. Anyone in and around my apartment building will have access...
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
You absolutely can not prohibit someone with a scanner from eavsedropping on wireless communications.
One word. Three syllables. Rhymes with "depiction".
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I would _hate_ having to use the net on a current PalmOS machine. Horrible little things - and yes, I had a Palm III for 6 months or so.
That screen is tiny - far too small to use for the web and really too small for e-mail as you can't fit 72 characters per line onto it.
Graffiti is really, really inaccurate and slow IMO - after all that time I still found I was only getting 80ish% accuracy. If it can't get into the high 90s it really isn't good enough. Maybe I just wasn't any good with it but seriously, this is with practice and real attempts to get better. I just found their topology seriously suspect - e's and s's got interchanges with alarming regularity. I actually spent a while experimenting with the training tool (so it'd render the character onto the screen) and was horrified to see what results it was coming up with. Also, that silkscreen design is just cheap 'n' nasty I'm afraid. Even if the screen area was permanently dedicated to input, making it rendered rather than fixed would help as you could use the keyboard without penalty, or get on-screen feedback as to your attempts. Seriously, having the system draw your characters under the pen helps. Try a WinCE machine to see what I mean.
I've currently got a Psion 5, which I love. A screen big enough to work on (640*240) and a keyboard I can use at nearly the same speed as a normal desktop. Yes, it's larger, heavier and more expensive. But it still fits in my jacket pocket (always felt a little silly with a Palm in a shirt pocket), doesn't noticeably weigh me down and, in all honesty, was worth the extra money. It's a better machine which allows me to do far more. For example, I've regularly taken live meeting notes on this. I tried on the Palm - just wasn't possible. With the Psion, works beautifully. I've written fairly long documents on it before then printed them off via the host PC and the sync cable - no conversion needed.
I'd have to say my honest opinion is that Palm succeded mostly by being just good enough and still relatively cheap. Good enough to make people at least try one without rejecting it from the spec sheet, cheap enough for people not to have to consider the purchase too hard and just buy the things. It's really not up to it, though, and I honestly can't see myself ever going back to a PalmOS box now I've had a play with a Psion. Got colleagues thinking about making the switch, too...
Try a Psion, then see if you can go back to the Visor.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
I know that a certain "well known" telecommunications carrier looked into the feasability of creating nationwide Internet access in England. The problem was just what you expect.
The cost to deploy such a network, even over an area as limited as England, was extremely costly. The revenue opportunity looked poor. A flat rate model or a usage based system wouldn't bring in the dollars to make it profitable.
Then, you add in the factor of competition, and there's a great deal of risk. And there's the known risk of the technology they used becoming outdated.
Its just not something big business will go after anytime soon -- and big business is the only one with a scale to do it... except for the government.
Some things in this world should remain a public asset ...
We'll see. People are trying to cons up various wireless Internet access schemes using 2.4 Ghz. If it can be implemented, fine enough. But if everybody tromps on everyone, then perhaps you'll allow as how public assets can be misused?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
There's a lot of spectrum out there - think 5-50 GHz short-distance line-of-sight. (There isn't enough technology development up there yet for really general applications, but it can happen if FCC stays out of the way, which it won't, or if it's too hard to avoid interference with other people in that range.) Some of the Ultra WideBand stuff may also be effective.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Consume is still a myth. No interoperating infrastructure exists. Just a couple of geeks who have worked out how to boot the wlan drivers under u*nix and to boot ISC's dhcpd.
The hard problems still to settle are
how to negotiate access point intercommunication - will it be IPIP, IPSEC, PPTP, mobileIP?
How to perform routing? OSPF over VPN's? Mobile IP tangles?
When cooperation gets beyond tech egos, and decisions made mean ubiquity of connection, it might just have a chance.
coward@free2air.net
Time flies like an arrow -- Fruit flies like a banana
The UK already has such a scheme in the form of tele2. They sell "Wireless [A]DSL". 500Mb of transfer for £34.99 ($52) a month (They don't say the speed... ~1MB?). They also do leased-line standard symmetrical services (at a price).
It's not that cheap, and 500Mb isn't even enough to download a decent Linux distro. Also, the coverage isn't much yet, but they are increasing it.
Anyway, the UK government has allocated a vast swathe of the 35Ghz microwave band for wireless Internet, of which, AFAIK, tele2 is the only licencee. It was a bit of a flop.
I wouldn't settle for anything less than the hard-wired stuff (I have an NTL cable modem myself. Very rare in the UK). Cable modem has much potential (>10Mbps downstream. That I want to see).
Russ
Sf lan is a small wireless LAn located on a former Army base in San Francisco .The presidio isnt all that big but its a start.oh yea and its free!
http://www.sflan.com
Unfortunatly, the laws of information theory place an upper limit on how much information can be transmitted within a given section of the radio spectrum.
True, you can improve things by putting up more towers and transmitting over shorter distances, or possibly point to point links, but there really isn't much available spectrum LEFT for new services, with the exception of the analog TV signals (which the TV stations seem very reluctant to give up).
Also, the trend has been towards commercial allocations, based on auctions, so that any spectrum opened up for wireless communication won't be free to use, because those who bought the rights to that EM real estate are going to want to make money on their investment.
Nicholas C Weaver
nweaver@cs.berkeley.edu
Test your net with Netalyzr
And more than likely break the usage agreement you have with your ISP not speaking of bandwith increase here.Even though more ISP's will close their eyes at ocasionally "jumps" over the allocated bandwith a sudden monthly increase will catch their attention and get you in trouble for sure.
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
Hi. I started a group in Portland, OR to build community wireless LANs. We've recently joined forces with another local group, PersonalTelco. They are going to be the info portal for all things wavey, and PDXwireless is going to be the local registration page. I encourage everyone to go out, buy some hardware, and start you own community LAN.
OK, I'm far from an expert on 802.11, it suits my purposes (no cables runing through the flat) but I feel the guys in London doing the community wireless network must have to do some hacking to get long distance out of 802.11?
If anyone is in the center of Amsterdam (Rembrants plein area) and has 802.11, feel free to try and reach my box, NAT is enabled, the network name is "dolphin", encryption is disabled. Chose an IP address in the 192.168.0.128/25 range (I'll keep the lower half for my machines). The mask is /24 and the gateway is 192.168.0.1.
I seriously doubt that you'll be able to reach it but its there if you want to try it and you never know?
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
But what you'll notice in areas like Miami is that because of piracy the legitimate stations are forced to boost their power to overcome the interference. Then instead of having 24 hr. Desi Arnaz at 98.1 you get him bleeding from 97.3-98.7. The pirates then try to cut through the bleeding, other stations complain about picking up The Mambo King in Atlanta, and the whole thing just turns into a ridiculous mess.
And your point about HAM packet transfer just proves my point. The group who is doing the most with this is l0pht, and who are they? That's right, a bunch of hackers with very questionable morals and motivations.
Thanks but no thanks. I'll take a little government regulation here any day.
I live in a rural area and at this point only have dialup access. I have been looking for an affordable broadband solution that I could potentially bring into my area. In my search I have found that there are two forms of bradband service, besides sattelite, that may very well be the future method of delivery for rural, and quite possibly urban, internet service.
One of these delivery methods is powerline broadband. I won't go into detail on this since this about wireless. The second, of course, is wireless broadband. Fixed Wireless broadband is already being put into use in a few areas and looks like it will quickly gain in popularity for residential use because the cost of equipment and delivery is competitive if not less then other forms. The primary reasons for the reduction in cost for delivering wireless service are 1) you do not have the cost of using the phone company for the "last mile" of delivery to the user, and 2) the frequencies being used, in the U.S. at least, are open for use by anyone.
PrairieInet is one ISP that is already offering fixed wireless broadband for both home and business use, in a rural area, and at rates competetive rates. malibu Networks is another company that is working on delivering fixed wireless broadband. The eZine ISP Planet, which is a online periodical for ISPs, has a new section dedicated to wireless service which includes articles on how to setup a wireless ISP.
Overall it looks to me like Wireless Broadband is one of the up-and-coming internet technologies. This may be something to really look at if not jump into soon.
Can it be created on a grassroots level? The only way that I'd use a wireless 'net is if it's similar to the now-dead (?) GeurillaNet project. It was to be a completely WWW, seperate from the "real" internet, with full encryption and anonymity. I have been thinking about starting something like this, first running on the present networks, but then moving to a seperate wireless 'net. But, to do this, requires LOTS of money and time... maybe after exams...
If anybody's interested in helping, mail me.
___________________________
_______________________________________
% fortune -o
internet per se, but the ability to use radio direction finding to pinpoint the location of spammers.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
It's underway in London already - by being a non-profit, loose organisation of volunteers just donating spare bandwidth and putting kit together to blanket as much of the public area as possible with 802.11.
It's interesting, to say the least.
See the consume.net site for more info. If it works, this might be a good model for replicating across other cities.
-- Yoz
I suppose the recent launch of the amateur ham radio satellite gives some hope, but personally I've gotten used to ~300 ms Oz-US ping times and I'm not really keen to give them up :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
My theory is that eventually very large chunks of bandwidth will have their users evicted. That bandwidth will be used to cover every populated bit of the US with high-bandwidth digital data. And of course, cellular voice will be subsumed by this network as voice-over-IP.
Just give it time....
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Just what we need, more large towers belting out radiation.
Do you want cheap, city-wide, wireless internet? There is a company that can do it very cost effectively. They are currently targeting 3rd world countries who are in desperate need for wireless communications. Currently the FCC has not allowed such a platform. (blame AT&T)
Using blimps to be able to cover a very large diamater (300 - 600 km) of high bandwidth wireless internet!
Check out their site:
www.platforms-intl.com
Cd
This
The problem with keeping wireless free to the masses is limited spectrum space. Thankfully the gov't in the US realized how problematic this could be many years ago and created the FCC to regulate the airwaves.
The net as it is now is virtually unlimited in growth potential, and we can lay as much fiber as we want without interfering with each other's communications. This is not the case with wireless, as evidenced by all the problems radio piracy causes.
Imagine if the wireless data spectrum were being polluted in much the same way that AM & FM bands are these days. Dropped connections, interference, and eavesdropping would be so rampant that nothing useful would ever come of your wireless gadgets. Instead of reading your email you might unexpectedly have a kiddie porn image pop up on your PDA. Instead of that report going to your boss it might end up in the hands of some 15 year old wireless hacker who will send it to your competition.
So if any of you are thinking about advocating opening up the airwaves to the public, I advise you to seriously consider the consequences first. Maybe having most of the spectrum allocated to large, pre-existing corporations isn't the best in the interest of freedom, but the anarchy of having a handful of geeky HAM dweebs trashing our data communications is simply something to be avoided at all costs!
As I said, I Am Not A HAM, so I am not sure I am right on all of the details, but the ARRL site should tell you everything you want to know. Might be a good read for everyone interested in wireless internet.
Also, this whitepaper outlines some of the ARRL's plans to allocate data channels within their own bands. Perhaps there are some good ideas in there on how to deploy a wireless internet over a larger scale?
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
This is much like your TV, which has many channels sent to it, but only shows you one at a time.
Have you ever used Ham radio? Do you know Ham operators? Those ``geeky HAM dweebs'' are much better-behaved than your typical AOL user. When someone starts acting inappropriately, it's the Hams who find her first and report her to the FCC.
Do you quite understand what you're saying? By your same logic, the US government should control all the networks because otherwise geeky computer users might be able to trash our data. Sheesh. Just because something is wireless doesn't make it inherently less secure. Wireless communication is just another way to transmit information... instead of transmitting over a wire or a fiber line, you're transmitting through the air. People can snoop your data, yes. But this isn't much different than wires today... especially consider Ethernet, where everyone gets everyone's traffic by design!
Having public communications channels isn't the end of the world. It is nice to have the FCC to have set frequency ranges set aside for different purposes. But I think you don't understand wireless communication or HAM radio operators at all.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
InfoAnarchy.org recently posted a related article about guerilla.net. Go check it out.
Even if you could communicate over some kind of wireless LAN that spanned over your city, what userful network would you be connected to ? The internet, you say ? There aren't enough addresses to share so that you would end up with one. If you connect to a public wireless LAN, the best you'll have is an address behind a NAT. An unreachable address. That's not so good.
There is a need for a network to connect to, that wouldn't have those address limitations. Something based on IPV6 would fit the bill. From that IPV6 network, you could open tunnels that'd lead to the IPV4 internet. Perhaps even request a real, tunnelled IPV4 address from an IPV4 provider somewhere.
There is the 6bone ( www.6bone.net ) that has been starting to create an IPV6 network. But it's not progressing. There is no content or services on the IPV6 network, so nobody will go there. A chicken-and-egg problem. If the 6bone or some other IPV6 network grew, it would solve one of the major impediments to a wireless internet.
That and micropayments. Micropayments remain something that would enable a lot of services to be offered. There are a couple of interesting systems.. www.e-gold.com is one. It allows one to purchase gold, kept in trust by the e-gold corporation. You can give any amount, no matter how small, with only a 1% transfer fee (0.50$ max). The problem is that getting money into an e-gold account is going to cost you at least 4%, probably more. And there is a 1% per year maintenance fee. So the system still is pretty costly.
www.standardreserve.com does things a bit differently. Perhaps in a more useful way. And then there is www.mojonation.net which promises to also create another virtual currency, but which is aimed at file sharing. However, the possibilities of such a virtual currency do not end there.
If you had an easy-to-buy, easy-to-trade virtual currency, that allowed micropayments among other things, and that had some popularity, that would enable many things. A wireless network ran by people in their homes would be one of them. Reflectors, tunnels, lease of addresses, and other network services further enabling a new network, they could all prove interesting to run, as you'd charge for their use. A minor fee, yes, but still a fee. Mojonation aims to do that. Combine the goal of mojonation with working software (instead of pre-pre-alpha quality mojonation software) and valuable e-currency such as e-gold (100% backed by metal).. And you'd have something truly interesting.
I imagine a parallel network developping along the internet. Any geek in his home, with a 30$ transmitter, could setup an access point. He would charge small sums for each KB transfered and sent through a tunnel, via the internet, onto that new network.
Dreams...